Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[Procrustes Stretched]

I hope the Justices are reading this thread. Thanks for a heads-up on the rest of the plan, inadvance.

Probably not reading this thread, at least the Chief Justice. He was busy denying a stay.


Remember when you said any individual or voter had the power to have standing to appeal a suit where the state is the party?


Guess what, the SCOTUS just denied a stay for PA submitted by a clerk after the State Officials said they wouldn't challenge the ruling.


I guess you were wrong, as I said, about "standing".


Pennsylvania Gay Marriages to Continue After Court Rebuff - Bloomberg
Utah same-sex marriage case on way to the Court (UPDATED) : SCOTUSblog


>>>>

wasting time here with this [MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION]

the irrationality of it's logic and it's rantings and ravings are too bizarre to warrant to much attention

 

[Silhouette]

In a reaction, obviously to the Hobby Lobby Ruling and the writing they see on the wall, the fascist leadership of California...

...


I suggest that citizens in California begin a lawsuit IMMEDIATELY...

...

For reasons why citizens all across the country should be alarmed: this is a cult that has been utilizing blackmail and nazi-style techniques to force its agenda on various states and ultimately to access orphaned children...

...

Ahh, hiding behind the children? Are you now or were you ever a Catholic Priest?

How did you get in here. Your rantings and ravings about gays and legal opinions and 'children' are highly disturbing. Does the floor charge nurse know you are online?

You know it almost sounds like you think regarding children's civil rights with regards to this conversation is trivial, silly or unimportant.

 

[Silhouette]

Deflection.


You said anyone has standing to appeal to the SCOTUS and get a stay, the SCOTUS said nope.



In Utah the State requested a stay, they have standing, they got the stay.


>>>>

Read my last post. This is a different legal situation than merely asking for a stay on gay marriage. This is the illegal revocation of the power of intitiative law and a circumvention of democracy per CA's constitution.

Completely different deal pal...speaking of deflection...

Uhhhh - not really.


California - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide not to appeal. Clerk tries to intervene. Doesn't have standing.

Pennsylvania - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide not to appeal. Clerk tries to intervene. Doesn't have standing.

Utah - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide to appeal. SCOTUS grants stay.




See the difference? You said anyone has standing to appeal. False, only the State officials have standing to appeal.



>>>>

On which issue? Stays on gay marriage or the destruction of the initiative law system in California? On the first, apparently only an AG can ask for a stay. On the second, any voter can ask for intervention to protect their vote's power.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Read my last post. This is a different legal situation than merely asking for a stay on gay marriage. This is the illegal revocation of the power of intitiative law and a circumvention of democracy per CA's constitution.

Completely different deal pal...speaking of deflection...

Uhhhh - not really.


California - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide not to appeal. Clerk tries to intervene. Doesn't have standing.

Pennsylvania - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide not to appeal. Clerk tries to intervene. Doesn't have standing.

Utah - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide to appeal. SCOTUS grants stay.




See the difference? You said anyone has standing to appeal. False, only the State officials have standing to appeal.



>>>>

On which issue?

The topic is the stays Same-sex Civil Marriage between consenting adults.

Stays on gay marriage or the destruction of the initiative law system in California?

The initiative system wasn't destroyed.

Just as the initiative system wasn't destroyed when Alabama's vote to bar interracial marriage was overturned.

A state cannot pass unconstitutional laws, whether it be through legislative action or through the initiative.

On the first, apparently only an AG can ask for a stay.

When the suit involves the State, the officers of the State represent it in court. Yes, usually that is the AG.

On the second, any voter can ask for intervention to protect their vote's power.

They can ask, but they won't have standing so their request will be thrown out. Just as the SCOTUS disallowed the request today.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The initiative system wasn't destroyed.

Just as the initiative system wasn't destroyed when Alabama's vote to bar interracial marriage was overturned.

A state cannot pass unconstitutional laws, whether it be through legislative action or through the initiative.

That's great, but no constitutional finding was made yet on gay marriage. It's pending. Or haven't you read the news about SCOTUS granting Utah a stay on gay marriage? If it was unconstitutional, the stay would have been denied. Granting Utah the stay was an indication from the court that gay marriage is not necessarily constitutional. The AG of Utah plead for that stay citing Windsor, a decision that was already made at the Top Level. It was made at the same time as the "punt" on Prop 8. In fact, Prop 8 was heard at the same session and the release of the Verdicts were on the same day if memory serves. In Windsor, the Court said repeatedly that the fed was deferring to the states on the legality of gay marriage: that the fed has no place saying "yes" or "no" to it outside state determination.

Therefore, California officials know that if any constitutional finding was looming on gay marriage, it is more likely that it is NOT a constitutional right. And they know that repeat of Windsor in the big clarification Hearing that all these appeals are heading to right now is more likely than not.

The Court said in Windsor that the idea of gay marriage was new and weird. So new and weird that the whole of the country needs a chance to discuss and weigh in on it. They most certainly did not say that a state cannot decide on its own about gay marriage. In fact they repeatedly emphasized the opposite.

So, what rogue CA officials are doing is active, pre-emptive contempt. And it's no coincidence that they did it immediately after the release of the Hobby Lobby Decision.

 

[dcraelin]

Its not hating gays to want the word marriage to have its traditional meaning. I think most who oppose gay"marriage" would gladly grant most aspects of civil unions to gay couples.

A decade ago many homosexuals would have accepted Civil Unions equal in every respect to Civil Marriage (not a subset of treatment).
However it's those that oppose equal treatment of homosexual that slamed that door shut by passing in many States Constitutional Amendments that banned BOTH Civil Unions and Civil Marriage (like my State of Virginia).
Only now that homosexuals are winning in the courts, winning in the legislatures, winning in the polls, and winning at the ballot box is, suddenly, "Civil Unions" an acceptable alternative. Many of those that speak "for" it now are the same people that spoke "against" it then when they felt they were in power. Now that their position is not so secure the attitude is changing.
Personally I supported them back then also, they would have been a fine intermediate step. Pass Civil Unions, wait a generation or two (20-40 years) and people would still have referred to them as Marriage, and Spouses, and Wives (Husbands). Slowly then it would have merged back into one legal aspect.
>>>>

You may be right on the motivation, but regardless it is the right position as marriage has an inherit meaning given by history,..... and legislative, not judge made law, is the foundation of the American system.

Dont forget that the whole basis for the federal courts interference in this state issue is based on a fraudulent precedent, ex parte Young, that is the result basically of Railroad bribery...of judicial branch corruption.


here is part of a dissent in that case by famous jurist John Marshall Harlan (from wikipedia)

Justice John Marshall Harlan angrily dissented, writing that the only reason that the suit was brought against Young was because he represented the state, and that the result of the suit would be to "tie the hands of the state". This was therefore no different from a suit against the state itself, prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment.

Harlan observed that the state can never act except through its officers, and this decision would deprive the state of the representation of its officers in court. He therefore condemned the decision as a "radical change in our government system" that "would place the states of the Union in a condition of inferiority never dreamed of when the Constitution was adopted or when the Eleventh Amendment was made a part of the supreme law of the land."

 

[Skylar]

In a reaction, obviously to the Hobby Lobby Ruling and the writing they see on the wall, the fascist leadership of California moves to block what they see obviously coming: the restoration of Propositon 8 as an enforceable law.

In a move to block the dominant initiative system [it's dominant to the legislature's Bills] in that state, lawmakers proposed a Bill to remove the language of Proposition 8 off the State Constitution in an pre-emptive strike to try to force gay marriage on a state whose majority does not want it there.

I don't think you understand what fascism is. As nothing you've described matches it. And an inititive processs is citizen approved law. Direct approval, not through representatives.

But laws passed directly are no less prone to violations of the constitution than those passed by representatives of the people. Democracy that can, at a majority vote, vote away the rights of the minority may be democracy. But its not America.

The Founders were fiercely aware of a concept they called 'the tyranny of the majority'. Where majority sentiment would allow them to strip individuals of fundamental rights. And they created the Bill of Rights as a bulwark against this. When the majority (through direct or representative democracy) created laws that abrogated rights, that law was void.

And Prop 8 abrogated rights. Thus, its void.

 

[Skylar]

The initiative system wasn't destroyed.

Just as the initiative system wasn't destroyed when Alabama's vote to bar interracial marriage was overturned.

A state cannot pass unconstitutional laws, whether it be through legislative action or through the initiative.

That's great, but no constitutional finding was made yet on gay marriage. It's pending.

Its not pending in California;

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.

Gay marriage ban overturned*-*Los Angeles Times

The Proposition was overturned as unconstitutional like 5 or 6 years ago. They weren't ambiguous about why: marriage is a right. Denying that right on the basis of sex is sexual discrimination, and thus unconstitutional.

Prop 8 supporters didn't like the ruling and they bumped it up the Feds. Nixing the idea that the Feds 'snatched' the issue away from the State. The USSC refused to hear the case, allowing the lower court ruling to stand.

So its 'in progress' nationally, HEAVILY leaning toward gay marriage bans being unconstitutional. And decided in California.

 

[Silhouette]

In a reaction, obviously to the Hobby Lobby Ruling and the writing they see on the wall, the fascist leadership of California moves to block what they see obviously coming: the restoration of Propositon 8 as an enforceable law.

In a move to block the dominant initiative system [it's dominant to the legislature's Bills] in that state, lawmakers proposed a Bill to remove the language of Proposition 8 off the State Constitution in an pre-emptive strike to try to force gay marriage on a state whose majority does not want it there.

I don't think you understand what fascism is. As nothing you've described matches it. And an inititive processs is citizen approved law. Direct approval, not through representatives.

But laws passed directly are no less prone to violations of the constitution than those passed by representatives of the people. Democracy that can, at a majority vote, vote away the rights of the minority may be democracy. But its not America.

The Founders were fiercely aware of a concept they called 'the tyranny of the majority'. Where majority sentiment would allow them to strip individuals of fundamental rights. And they created the Bill of Rights as a bulwark against this. When the majority (through direct or representative democracy) created laws that abrogated rights, that law was void.

And Prop 8 abrogated rights. Thus, its void.

Um, apparently you haven't read about 99% of the posts I've made on this thread. I discuss over and over and over how initiative laws in CA are laws enacted by the voters, not the legislature. The legislature may not "overrule" initiative law without a new iniative there approved, again, by the voters.

That's the meat of my entire argument here. That they're attempting to change "just family code law" that's subservient to Prop 8's definition is one and the same as their attempting to alter Prop 8 without permission from those that are dominant to them in iniative law.

It is a coup. It is theft of power from the People of that state. It is violation of the power of their vote without due cause. Rogue CA officials are taking advantage of a state of legal limbo, where they have to know the status of "the constitutionality of gay marriage" is in question. Particularly since each of those rogue officials have access to the internet and the text of the Windsor Opinion rendered just last Summer on the matter. Windsor is THE LATEST legal reference at the highest level for making decisions at the state level around gay marriage. And NOWHERE in Windsor was it made plain or clear that gay marriage is a "constitutional right". In fact, it concluded many times that that wasn't the case at all; and that from their vantage point, gay marriage was a new and weird concept needing the weigh-in from the broadest swath of the public in each state as legally possible.

So in this state of legal limbo, with a stay granted in Utah on gay marriages pending appeal to the highest Court, California's rogue officials are trying to do a pre-emptive block, following Hobby Lobby's omen, of keeping their own citizens from weighing in or having already weighed in on how they feel about this new, weird type of marriage.

ie: This coup was in reaction to what the rogue CA officials are sniffing in the wind. It is anticipatory-contempt of both their own state's constitutional provisions [the power of the vote, permission needed from voters to alter or revoke the spirit or written word of initiative law] and what they have good reason to know is the US Supreme Court's position and how that will be re-affirmed when all these appeals are heard.

As such, I believe that an individual voter or a group of them from CA who want immediate intervention to make their vote count, per their constitutional right, can appeal to the US Supreme Court for redress. This is a different matter than "is gay marriage allowed or not". This is a matter of the defiling of democracy by the very state officials that the High Court says are the only ones who have standing. Pretty neat little sewn-up coup too, right? "Sorry voters, your vote doesn't count. And I know that violates your constitution, but because you have no way to appeal our behavior of robbing the power of your vote, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it!".

I think there is. There has to be a way for citizens to appeal the power of their vote being forcibly removed by rogue officials in their state. If nothing else, I'd like to see SCOTUS put on the hot seat about the points that dcraelin made about ex parte Young. This is a legal loophole, fodder for the weeds of tyranny to grow very quickly. And man oh man alive are those official in CA running with it.

 

[Silhouette]

In 1789 the US Constitution was adopted. Within Article III of the Constitution was the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Among the types of cases the federal courts could hear were cases "between a State and citizens of another State" and "between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects." In 1793 the US Supreme Court ruled 4-1 (Justice Iredell dissenting) that these two clauses in Article III abrogated the sovereign immunity the States were told they would retain after ratifying the Constitution (see Chisolm v. Georgia 2 US 451). Two Justices (Justice Wilson and Chief Justice Jay) went so far as to suggest that the States had completely waived their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution.

The States were outraged over this decision because they had been told multiple times in The Federalist Papers and elsewhere that they would be immune from prosecution in the federal courts. Without this immunity, they could be sued over their Revolutionary War debts and this would likely result in multiple States going bankrupt. With this in mind, the Congress passed and the States ratified the 11th Amendment which states "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States, by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." This Amendment was meant to protect the States from being controlled by the federal courts and from having to pay taxpayers' dollars because of federal court judgments. In 1890 the Supreme Court ruled that the 11th Amendment was meant to codify each State's sovereign immunity and that the Amendment's reference to lawsuits by an other State's citizens or a foreigner's lawsuit was because those were the two types of lawsuits at issue in the Chisolm decision.

Now that I have explained the history of the 11th Amendment, let me explain how the Supreme Court has, to a large extent, gutted that Amendment. Now common sense would dictate that if a State is immune from prosecution in the federal courts, so are the officials that make up this State. Of course were talking about the federal courts, where anything but common sense reigns supreme. In 1908, in Ex Parte Young 209 US 123, the Supreme Court declared that since a State could not order or allow any of its officials to violate the Constitution, if an official did violate the Constitution he could no longer represent the State and so could be sued in federal court. What this allowed the federal courts to do is tell a State's official to remedy what the court considered a violation of the Constitution.

This undermined the relationship between the federal government and the States, since instead working together to determine what a particular federal law meant the federal government's courts could simply order the States to do something. It should also be noted that Ex Parte Young was decided a mere three years after the Supreme Court's decision in Lochner v. New York which said that neither the federal government or any State could interfere with any contract (i.e., "liberty of contract"). Lochner was overruled in 1937. Since the Congress did not agree with Lochner it would not pass any law to enforce it and the 11th Amendment would seem to protect the States from lawsuits to enforce Lochner. This would appear to make Lochner unenforceable. So the Supreme Court's novel decision in Ex Parte Young allowed the Court to enforce a decision that otherwise would have been meaningless.

To this day the federal courts, on a regular basis, tell the States (through their officials) to do this or that, while at the same time claiming the lawsuit is not being brought against any State. This is double talk worthy of a politician. I'm suing a member of a State government, but because I didn't mention a State by name I'm not officially suing a State and so the 11th Amendment doesn't apply. This would be like me punching you in the nose and saying that I didn't hit you because I didn't hit your entire body. Ex Parte Young is nothing short of a judicial power grab. It is the same as the Chisolm decision. That decision was overruled by the 11th Amendment, so the Supreme Court used double talk to get around the Amendment (a State is made up of officials, but when you sue one of these officials you are not suing a State).

The double talk continues, because in most cases only a government official can commit the alleged violation. For example, in Ex Parte Young Minnesota Attorney General Edward T. Young was accused of violating a company's economic rights under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment can only be violated by a State, so that if Edward T. Young is not representing the State then there is no violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's solution to this problem was to hold that its ruling in Ex Parte Young only applied to a court's jurisdiction. This meant that Mr. Young, for the purpose of this lawsuit, was simultaneously a member of the State government and was not a member of the State government. This is double talk on top of double talk. Of course whether a State official is considered a member of the State government depends on what will give the courts more power over the States. For the purposes of the courts hearing cases against the States, the official isn't a member of the State government, but suddenly for the purposes of the alleged violation he magically is a member of the State government again.

Today no federal judge or Supreme Court Justice claims that Ex Parte Young is based on fact (in 1982 Justice Stevens said Ex Parte Young was nothing but a "fiction" (i.e., a lie), but they still use it so that they can tell the States what to do. The Supreme Court, since 1996, has vigorously enforced the 11th Amendment, but still refuses to overrule Ex Parte Young. Why? If the States are immune from prosecution in the federal courts how can any federal judge, with a straight face, believe Ex Parte Young is consistent with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court should overrule Ex Parte Young, but since that isn't likely the States should declare Ex Parte Young invalid. What will the federal government do if a State disregards a federal court ruling? If necessary the States should call for a Constitutional Convention (see Article V of the Constitution), so that this and other undermining of States' Rights can be dealt with. As long as Ex Parte Young is around any federal court judge can effectively make himself governor of any State at anytime. Ex Parte Young

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States, by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

But where does it say a lawsuit cannot be brought by a citizen within a state against his own state officials? Surely if a state official turns to 7 million people and says in full violation of their state and federal constitutional rights "your vote doesn't have power here...move along..." there is redress at the federal level?

 

[Silhouette]

Below is a sample of the revised family law code that was illegally redacted behind intiative law that states that marraige is "between a man and a woman" without having been revoked by a ballot initiative in California. Which is an outright definition of sedition. Rogue CA officials lined-out the parts in red below. Note the actual textbook description of Proposition 8 was lined out without voters' permission. Subserviant laws that depend on a dominant law that was enacted by a state initiative vote may not be altered to conflict directly with that dominant initiative law. Such an act is an act of sedition against the voters of California: [look for similar acts to follow in your state since California is the testing grounds for the LGBT fascist cult movement]

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 300 of the Family Code is amended to read:
300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman two
persons , to which the consent of the parties capable of making
that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute
marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and
solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by
Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).
(b) For purposes of this part, the document issued by the county
clerk is a marriage license until it is registered with the county
recorder, at which time the license becomes a marriage certificate.
SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. An Two unmarried male
of the age of persons 18 years of age
or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or
older, and who are not otherwise disqualified,
are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.
SEC. 3. Section 302 of the Family Code is amended to read:
302. (a) An unmarried male or female
person under the age of 18 years
18 years of age is capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting
permission to the underage person or persons to marry.
(b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each
underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each
underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a
certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at
the time the marriage license is issued.
SEC. 4. Section 308 of the Family Code is repealed.
308. (a) A marriage contracted outside this state that would be
valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage between
two persons of the same sex contracted outside this state that would
be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was contracted
prior to November 5, 2008.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, two persons of the
same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5, 2008,
that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the
marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from the
California Constitution, the United States Constitution, statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and
imposed upon spouses with the sole exception of the designation of
"marriage." SEC. 5. Section 308 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid
by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is
valid in this state.
SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

Interesting to note that senator Leno from the gay district of San Francisco has included redaction of age limits to marriage as well. Funny how those redactions weren't publicized at all. Is Leno pre-emptively preparing the voters of California for his next act of fascist dictation? Given the LGBT veneration of its sexual icon Harvey Milk and his penchant for underaged sodomy with the boys he adopted off the streets and simultaneoulsy officiated as father and sodomizer to, this lowering of the age limit in family law without advertisement to the voters is very, VERY insidious.

The article where I got the link to the actual text says "here's the link to the actual text" or some such claiming it was too long to include in the article. Bottom line: it was too explicit to be included. There would be an uproar if people knew that not only their vote on Prop 8 didn't count but now gay senator Leno was after lowering the age of legal consent as well...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION] @WordlWatcher

In a reaction, obviously to the Hobby Lobby Ruling and the writing they see on the wall, the fascist leadership of California...

...


I suggest that citizens in California begin a lawsuit IMMEDIATELY...

...

For reasons why citizens all across the country should be alarmed: this is a cult that has been utilizing blackmail and nazi-style techniques to force its agenda on various states and ultimately to access orphaned children...

...

Ahh, hiding behind the children? Are you now or were you ever a Catholic Priest?

How did you get in here. Your rantings and ravings about gays and legal opinions and 'children' are highly disturbing. Does the floor charge nurse know you are online?

You know it almost sounds like you think regarding children's civil rights with regards to this conversation is trivial, silly or unimportant.

Most every time somebody is hiding behind "the children" we find a truly horrible and despicable person masquerading as a saint

 

[Silhouette]

[MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION] @WordlWatcher

Ahh, hiding behind the children? Are you now or were you ever a Catholic Priest?

How did you get in here. Your rantings and ravings about gays and legal opinions and 'children' are highly disturbing. Does the floor charge nurse know you are online?

You know it almost sounds like you think regarding children's civil rights with regards to this conversation is trivial, silly or unimportant.

Most every time somebody is hiding behind "the children" we find a truly horrible and despicable person masquerading as a saint

Well that would especially apply when those people use children to try to convince the US Supreme Court that Upholding legal conditions where people such as these may no longer be barred access to adoptable orphans: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

You know...like LGBT lawyers did to play the heartstrings of Justices back with Windsor/Prop 8 last year... Look at the first picture in that link and read the argument in the OP. 'Think of the children of gay couples!' LGBT cultees lamented to the Justices in 2013. Yes, think of the children indeed...

 

[Silhouette]

I just want answers from CA officials why they believe they can begin lining out man/woman text in family law and now the age of consent in these subsections: Section 2 & 3 , subsections 301 & 302(a) SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

 

[WorldWatcher]

I just want answers from CA officials why they believe they can begin lining out man/woman text in family law and now the age of consent in these subsections: Section 2 & 3 , subsections 301 & 302(a) SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

#1 Call the legislative office of the California's legislature - I'm sure they can explain it to you. See the legislature is allowed to make changes to Statutory law. Since Prop 8 was unconstitutional, they are free to amend Statutory law as needed to reflect the reality that SSCM is legal in California.

#2 Secondly you should learn how to read the proposed amendments to that Statutory law. They did not change the age of consent. Deletions are in strike-out and additions are in italics.


Here is the text before the changes:

SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. An unmarried male of the age of 18 years of age
or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or
older, and are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of
consenting to and consummating marriage.​

Here is the text with the deletions (strike-out) and additions (italics):

" SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage."​

Bill SB 1306 DOES NOT change the age of consent.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Bill SB 1306 DOES NOT change the age of consent.

The question isn't whether or not the age of consent was changed. The question is why were the ages lined out? What was the reasoning there?

Do you have any ideas? It looks to me like they were thinking of not just defying voter mandates in gender but also age.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bill SB 1306 DOES NOT change the age of consent.

The question isn't whether or not the age of consent was changed. The question is why were the ages lined out? What was the reasoning there?

The ages weren't changed they remained the same.

Do you have any ideas?

There are no ideas to be had. They didn't change the ages.

It looks to me like they were thinking of not just defying voter mandates in gender but also age.

The age requirements REMAINED THE SAME no ages in section 301 or 302 of the Family Code (Statutory Law) was changed. They were 18 before and the remained 18. For anyone under 18 before they needed a judges order, now if they are 18 or below they STILL NEED A JUDGES ORDER.

Before Section 301 said "18 years or older", guess what? Section 301 still says "18 years or older".

Before Section 302 said "an male or female under the age of 18..." must obtain a court order, guess what? Section 302 now says "An unmarried person under 18 years of age..." must obtain a court order.

You have to read the changes and they were already shown to you.

Strike-Through text is deletion, Italic text is addition.

When you read them both together it is obvious that no age requirements were changed.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

[


There are no ideas to be had. They didn't change the ages.

The age requirements REMAINED THE SAME no ages in section 301 or 302 of the Family Code (Statutory Law) was changed. They were 18 before and the remained 18. For anyone under 18 before they needed a judges order, now if they are 18 or below they STILL NEED A JUDGES ORDER.

Before Section 301 said "18 years or older", guess what? Section 301 still says "18 years or older".

Before Section 302 said "an male or female under the age of 18..." must obtain a court order, guess what? Section 302 now says "An unmarried person under 18 years of age..." must obtain a court order.

You have to read the changes and they were already shown to you.

Strike-Through text is deletion, Italic text is addition.

When you read them both together it is obvious that no age requirements were changed.

So you're saying to readers here essentially "Don't pay attention to the intent of trying to change the age limits by lining them out; all that matters is what ended up in the final copy".

I'm saying instead, "pay attention to the lined out age limits in the draft" And here's why: Gay senator Leno is the guy who pushed this bill through the CA legislature. I would say he owns them because of the implied gay threat that seems to loom over every politician, business owner and even private person for daring to defy the Agenda. They aren't even shy about announcing that they will attack anyone who stands in their way. As we speak, their owned democratic party is pushing for a Bill in Congress to defy the US Supreme Court for It daring to find in favor of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions.. Because they know what that means for LGBT vs Utah.

Senator Leno is the same guy who made it illegal in California for minors to access reparative therapy: even if they wanted it for themselves to repair compulsive behaviors they got from being molested. No-go. And Leno is the same gay guy who pushed the "celebrate Harvey Milk Day" bill so that kids in school each year have to celebrate a man who took minor teens off the street and sodomized them while officiating as their father/guardian. This is the guy who celebrates a known and documented pedophile as representative of "the LGBT movement across the nation and the world" [words he got into law in CA in SB 572] and the same guy who saw to it that once a child is molested, they cannot access therapy to undo that damage in their behaviors they don't want.

This man has singularly invaded the schools and now the very minds of children to introduce the idea of lowering the age of sexual contact of minors. This is exactly what pedophiles do: incremental progression towards their targets....under the radar and with the misguided permission of their guardians. And now we have this same man, this very powerful man who owns the Legislature in CA [from willing and fearful accomplices], "accidentally lining out age limits in the family law code" [illegally behind the backs of voters along with gender descriptions].

You can play pretend about what's going on in California all day long. "Don't look behind the curtain folks!" Like the Wizard of Oz. Except I'm pulling the curtain back on the Great Wizard of Odd in CA and showing the world what he's up to. You say the lined-out age limits in the draft is nothing to pay attention to. I say it's EVERYTHING we should pay attention to: given who it is whose behind all this radical and machiavellian legislation that keeps creeping the LGBT cult closer and closer and closer to little kids...

 

[Silhouette]

SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

The part in red is lined out/omitted from family law. And this precise wording is the precise wording of Proposition 8 whose legality is currently being appealed. This revocation of initiative law was done without the permission of voters in a new iniatiative to repeal the old one. [see the stay granted by the US Supreme Court in the case of gay marriage vs Utah]. This is a violation, direct and provable, of the California state constitution and its guarantees to citizens of that state. Senator Leno and his cohorts in the legislature there circumvented the initiative system and inserted their own laws in its place.

Action must be taken.

 

[Silhouette]

Proposition 8: Supreme Court Ruling Explained

June 26, 2013

By ARIANE DE VOGUE, TERRY MORAN and JOSH HAFENBRACK

The Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 today that bans gay marriage, and instead dismissed the case on procedural grounds. The court held that supporters of the ballot initiative—who stepped in to defend Prop 8 when California officials refused to do so—did not have the legal right to be in court. Prop. 8: Supreme Court Ruling Explained - ABC News

Therefore, California's rogue officials stepping in in family law and nullifying Prop 8 without the required voters' approval to do so, while the constitutionality of Prop 8 is in question, means that they are in violation of democratic rule in CA. Plain and simple. They lined out the exact wording of Prop 8 as applicable to family law. That is illegal to do and the US Supreme Court should be brought in immediately to take action to preserve the initiative system in CA.